Commons:Valued image candidates/Scheckter, Jody 1976-07-10 (Ausschn).jpg

Scheckter, Jody 1976-07-10 (Ausschn).jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-06 18:36 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Jody Scheckter, face profile 1976
Used in	Global usage af:Jody Scheckter, ar:جودي شيكتر, bg:Джоди Шектър, bs:Jody Scheckter, ca:Temporada 1979 de Fórmula 1, de:Jody Scheckter, de:Geschichte der Juden in Südafrika, el:Τζόντι Σέκτερ, en:1977 Formula One season, es:Temporada 1979 de Fórmula 1, es:Jody Scheckter, fi:Jody Scheckter, fr:Jody Scheckter, gl:Jody Scheckter, he:ג'ודי שכטר, hr:Jody Scheckter, hr:Formula 1 - sezona 1979., hu:Portál:Formula–1, hu:Jody Scheckter, hu:Portál:Formula–1/Formula–1-es versenyzők, it:Jody Scheckter, it:Gran Premio di Monaco 1976, ja:ジョディー・シェクター, nl:Jody Scheckter, nl:Formule 1 in 1979, no:Jody Scheckter, pl:Jody Scheckter, pl:Podsumowanie startów zespołu Tyrrell w Formule 1, ro:Jody Scheckter, ru:Шектер, Джоди, ru:Indy 200 at Mid-Ohio, sl:Jody Scheckter, sv:Jody Scheckter, uk:Джоді Шектер
Review (criteria)	Question - Very strange angle. How would you compare its usefulness in online articles to File:Jody Scheckter during the 1979 Monaco Grand Prix.jpg, a smaller and probably poorer-quality file, but one that I think has more character? I'm leaning toward saying that's the most useful picture in scope, though I suppose it could be argued whether it's a portrait or not. -- Ikan Kekek ( talk) 04:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: As the image is used in more than 25 articles I thought it would be valuable. May be that I am wrong. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I don't take number of articles in which a photo is used as proof of its being more useful. Please make an argument that compares the two photos themselves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I do not have to justify myself towards you because VI is not important enough for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I wish you would take this seriously and give an argument. You probably think I'm being disrespectful to you. I'm not. I think this is indeed a useful scope, appreciate the nomination but question whether another photo might be more useful. I think you're showing disrespect for the entire project by not being willing to have a discussion other than one of statistics (how many Wikipedia articles use a photo). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)  Support For me the scope is OK. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  Oppose - Yes, the scope is fine, but I think the other photo, though poor-quality, is more useful as a portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: Once more: I show here a profile picture and do not understand, why it should be useless. It seems to me as there were personally reasons to vote negative. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Why on Earth would you think I have any personal reason to vote to support or decline? I can't understand that at all. Where do you think these things up? And to say that I think another photo in scope is more useful is not to say this photo is useless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)  Support, useful and unique in the nominated scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)